Saturday, May 10, 2025
Today's update includes possible war in Asia, a Chicago Pope, and discussion of "Schumer 101."
If you'd like to get these posts via email, you can subscribe here.
Not great!
Putting this up top because it might be the most important unfolding news story today: India and Pakistan--both nuclear powers--may be in the early stages of a war.
Da Pope
There's a new pope. I don't have a profile of him to recommend yet, but I'm sure there are a ton.
He is the first American and, presumably, the first Chicago White Sox fan to be named pope. A pope with opinions about Juan Uribe. What a time to be alive. The Chicago Sun-Times even has a picture of him attending the 2005 World Series (he's the guy on the phone in the upper left):
Cue the deep dish jokes:
And the Malort jokes:
And other Chicago jokes:
People are trying to evaluate this in terms of US politics, which I'm not sure makes a ton of sense. I expect that, as a Catholic, he will be anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, pro immigration, not great on gay rights and women's rights, and generally in favor of helping the needy and vulnerable, plus at least some connection to covering up sexual abuse. How he presents politically will depend on what he emphasizes. Nevertheless, my favorite early take:
Will Senate Dems try to trick their own voters yet again?
Congress is attempting to pass legislation to regulate "stablecoins," a type of cryptocurrency asset. The legislation itself, called the GENIUS Act, is apparently inadequate to meet the regulatory need. (I'm not following this issue closely, but, among other things, I trust Elizabeth Warren.) The Trump family recently launched its own stablecoin, and, while it's not the only problem with the bill, the GENIUS Act would apparently facilitate payments, i.e., bribes, to Trump. Indeed, a company out of Abu Dhabi has announced a deal that will involve the purchase of $2 billion in Trump stablecoins.
But the bill's merits aren't the reason I mention it. Instead, I want to discuss the related legislative wrangling because it may be shaping up as a textbook example of how Congressional Democrats are just pathologically unwilling to exercise power.
The GOP is mostly united in support of the bill. In addition, there are a number of pro-crypto Democrats inclined to support the law, possibly related to the immense amount of money that crypto interests give to politicians, including Democrats. However, even those pro-crypto Dems aren't excited about appearing to bless a massive Trump bribery scheme.
Fortunately, if Senate Dems don't want to facilitate Trump's corruption, it appears they can kill the bill with the filibuster. Alternatively, as a condition of moving the bill past the filibuster to get an up or down vote, Senate Dems could insist the bill be amended to prevent Trump (and other elected officials) from using stablecoins to effectively accept bribes. Unfortunately, there is reporting that suggests that is not what Senate Dems plan to do.
Instead, Senate Dems may allow the bill to move past the filibuster with its 60-v0te threshold in exchange for a vote on an anti-bribery amendment. Whether that amendment is incorporated into the bill would be determined by a simple majority vote. Given the GOP's disinterest in preventing corruption by Trump, any such amendment would fail. At that point, with the filibuster off the table, the bill would pass and become law without the anti-bribery provisions, the worst of the various possible outcomes.
Do Senate Democrats actually want that bill to pass? Despite the bill being bad policy, some Senate Dems probably want it to pass to serve their crypto industry benefactors, and they may worry it will lose too much GOP support if it doesn't enable Trump's corruption, or that there won't be time if it's amended at this stage, or that it will fail for some other reason if Dems stick to their guns. But more than that, I think there are Senate Democrats who just don't want to do anything that might make anyone mad, and you can't do something to make someone mad if you don't do anything at all.
If they want the bill to pass, Senate Democrats could just pass the bill (or let it pass), so why do this convoluted dance wherein they give up their ability to kill or influence the bill in exchange for a vote they are guaranteed to lose? Presumably, to fool their own voters. They might not get the substantive outcome their voters want, but Senate Democrats can tell their voters that they voted against the bill (after voting to overcome the filibuster) and that they "tried," or "forced a vote on corruption," or "got the Republicans on record," or some such bullshit. That may be fine and good if that's really all they can do, but they appear to possess actual power to kill the bill or force an amendment. If I can get a better substantive result, I want a better substantive result, not theater. This is what I mean when I say Democrats are unwilling to exercise power, and this is what I'm talking about when I say Democrats are trying to fool their own voters.
It's possible I'm misunderstanding the situation, and I admit that I'm drawing some inferences. But it wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing has happened. I mean, this article quotes a source as calling the strategy "Schumer 101."
Fortunately, it seems that Senate Democrats may decide on a different course of action, possibly because their voters and parts of the news media are starting to recognize these shameful tactics for what they are. I hope people are watching for this sort of performative inaction in the future. I don't think we can end the political career of any Senate Democrat who considers this sort of capitulation aimed at fooling their own voters soon enough.
Cuts to Medicaid could throw millions off health insurance
To help partially offset the $4.5 trillion tax cut they'd like to give to the rich, Congressional Republicans are considering massive cuts to Medicaid, which would throw millions of Americans off of health insurance. Some House Republicans are getting cold feet, and it's unclear exactly how deep they'll cut.
I guess we need to stigmatize open racism again
A white woman in Rochester, Minnesota, was video recorded calling a black 5-year-old boy the N-word on a playground, and the video went viral. The woman set up a page on the Christian fundraising site GiveSendGo, stating that she has received threats and may have to relocate. Her fundraising page explains her use of the N-word to a child as "I called the kid out for what he was." She has raised over $700,000. The debate over her conduct and how it has been financially rewarded spawned this truly amazing video, in which Piers Morgan is the voice of decency, something I hadn't been sure was possible.
Miscellanea
Newsletter favorite Gabby Windy redefines nighttime.
A Luigi Mangione musical sells out.
Member discussion